Monday, February 27, 2017

Feminism is anti-Christian

There is no two ways around it. As Dalrock shows, the evidence is clear.
The vow for the UK equivalent of the Girl Scouts, the Girl Guides, originally included:

do my duty to God

In 1910 this was modified to remove a sense of obligation to God, and substitute it with emotional feelings for God:

to love my God

This was then changed in 2013 to:

be true to myself and develop my beliefs

We also don’t get this merely from secular sources, or even just from liberal Christian leaders. Women’s feelings are taught by modern conservative Christians as something holy, divinely inspired.

Thus we are taught that wives are light years closer to God than their husbands, and that wives are channeling God’s will when they throw godly tantrums.  This is especially true when it comes to women’s sexual/romantic feelings.  Pastors Dave Wilson and Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. both teach that a wife’s sexual attraction (or lack thereof) to her husband is a signal from God regarding her husband’s righteousness.
Feminism isn't merely wrong, or incoherent, or dyscivilizational. It is outright evil. It is intrinsically anti-Christ.

28 comments:

liberranter said...

Feminism isn't merely wrong, or incoherent, or dyscivilizational. It is outright evil. It is intrinsically anti-Christ.

And yet churchians, especially those of the evangelical bent, are so blindly self-deluded and enthralled to the culture that they'll enthusiastically echo this sentiment while at the same time doing everything within their power to perpetuate feminism within their own ranks. The cognitive dissonance is maddening.

dc.sunsets said...

Word of the day is "Devotion."
Feminism (like most -isms today) pushes devotion to self alone, which is synonymous with narcissism.) Women cannot be devoted to self and be devoted to a husband and devoted to a child.

Devotion is what defines a marriage. It defines the relationship to children. It is the foundation of civilization. Feminism is an adversary of civilization and of human happiness.

manuel hernandez said...

As someone who is not religious, this is one of the big things that has turned me off Christianity, but more specifically the Evangelical Protestant-ish version practiced in the US. It's the whole "accept Jesus into your heart and you will be OK" that I ironically believe that has given feminism legs to stand on. As a former Catholic, I might be critical of some it's aspects, but at least one thing going in its favor is not just the idea that at some point you must do good works, but there is penance that you must do if you screw up. The whole point being, nothing in life is free, not even salvation. Evangelical Christians don't have that. There are no consequences for any actions, even if they involve stealing, fornication, mutilating one's body, worshipping idols, pride, etc. It's all about believing with all your heart that Jesus loves you.

Cecil Henry said...

'Develop my beliefs'????? = do what I want, right or wrong, truth be damned.

Anchorman said...

Every "ism" means supremacy of what precedes it.

Matt Robison said...

Speak of the devil...literally. Feminism as a goddess: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/no-goddess-can-ever-save-us.html

Artisanal Toad said...

There are only two questions to answer. The first is "does God change?" He answered that and the answer is a resounding "NO".

Man was created first and given his mission. Then woman was created from man, for man, in order to be used by man to help him accomplish his mission. God, speaking to the woman, said "He shall rule over you." Men and women are inherently different and the Bible details two different standards of sexual morality, one for men and the other for women. Has anything changed? No.

This gives rise to the second question- where did this equality garbage come from? That's a bit more of an answer. What happened is that the church was invaded by outsiders following the adoption of Christianity as the official "religion" of Rome and some of these men became prominent within the church. I speak of the perverts Jerome and Augustine as the primary culprits who swayed many to their false doctrines. They believed that sex was bad and sexual pleasure was the height of wickedness.

Based on their writings the church threw out the Biblical rules on marriage and claimed that commitment, rather than sex, was what formed a marriage and it was better if the couple never had sex. They also claimed that men and women were held to the same equal standard of sexual morality (sex is bad, don't do it). Obviously having more than one wife was only for the purpose of sexual variety and pleasure, so that was forbidden. Sex, even within marriage, was considered a sin. Marriage was no longer under the authority of the man, but the church claimed that only a public ceremony within the church performed by a church official would be official and legal.

Thus the doctrine of equality between the sexes was formed and that became the moral foundation of feminism. As long as people believe that men and women are equal, the moral foundation of feminism is maintained and it cannot be defeated.

Feminism is anti-Christian because its entire foundation is a lie that is contradicted by Scripture.

Unknown said...

Toad, I'd say that in God's eyes, sex _is_ commitment: you broke it, you bought it. If that's true, pump-and-dump is a very bad plan.

Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club said...

@manuel hernandez- As another ex-Catholic, I agree that there a lot of problems (like who did Francis the Talking Mule get to be Pope?), but it's true that nothing terrifies the self-righteous Churchians like the idea of confessing your sins (except for FB likes, of course).

Their creed is the Proposition Kingdom of Heaven: no real effort required, just say "I believe!" loudly and often, and you're in!

VFM #7634 said...

@Artisanal Toad

Haven't seen a post so full of lies and half-truths here in a long time.

" I speak of the perverts Jerome and Augustine as the primary culprits who swayed many to their false doctrines."

Hoo boy...

"They believed that sex was bad and sexual pleasure was the height of wickedness."

For the minority of people who are called to be religious virgins, being a virgin is considered a higher state. But attempting to be a virgin when you're actually called to be married is actually sinful. Seminaries, monasteries, and nunneries would reject men and women all the time because they determined the religious life was not for them.

"and it was better if the couple never had sex."

Yet somehow, a wife cutting off her husband commits a mortal sin.

Sex, even within marriage, was considered a sin.

No. "Unnatural acts" (anal, fellatio, cunnilingus) are considered a sin, and given the harmful effects on the participants, especially the recipient, it is clear there's a reason they're sins. P-in-V sex (of whatever position you want) is not.

"but the church claimed that only a public ceremony within the church performed by a church official would be official and legal."

Again, wrong. Members of the church have the priest as the official witness of the church. If they live in a place where there are no priests, they can still marry.

"Obviously having more than one wife was only for the purpose of sexual variety and pleasure, so that was forbidden."

Tell me how polygamy works out for the Muslims and Africans, with their hordes of horny, aggressive, crime-prone young men.

Artisanal Toad said...

@VFM #7634

As to the Scriptural issues raised, it's all laid out on my blog with a complete exegesis. If you feel like challenging it with Scripture, feel free to do so there if you can. The Magic Book of Medieval Opinions (otherwise known as the teachings and traditions of the "living magisterium") is not accepted as authoritative.

As to the history of what the ancient church taught, I rely on Professor Brundage's Magnum Opus, "Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe". Here's two quotes for you:

"Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man's disobedience to God's designs (4). Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other's body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful (5). Augustine's underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond. (6). (Page 80)"


Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine's negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection (13).

Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources (14). 14 But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential. (page 82)



You call me a liar, back it up. Quote the lie and quote/cite the proof.

Artisanal Toad said...

"Tell me how polygamy works out for the Muslims and Africans, with their hordes of horny, aggressive, crime-prone young men."

I addressed this as well as the other beta fantasies concerning multiple wives here:

https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/polygyny-and-the-beta-apocalypse-fantasy/

You might want to read the comments as well.

p_q said...

http://chartsbin.com/view/2337
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002217.html
https://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/08/whats-causing-muslim-nations-to-have.html

@Artisanal Toad, There doesn't seem to be an actual large difference in sex ratios in polygamous societies, at least not in a positive direction for beta males (more women than men) so the fact that older men are more likely to make daughters isn't a strong enough factor in sex ratios, these older male polygamists are not having a significant enough number of children in their peak female producing years to offset their harems or other factors depressing the female to male ratio.
This doesn't address the fact that the children of these harem maintaining men would be of higher status than the betas who lost a potential wife to a high value male. If her mother could marry up to a higher social status why would her daughter marry down far below her mother? While a sultan may take a lower class girl it's unimaginable that the daughter of a sultan would go back to that lower class for a husband.

(A look at key age ratios (18-34) would be more enlightening than just the total ratio)

liberranter said...

Man was created first and given his mission. Then woman was created from man, for man, in order to be used by man to help him accomplish his mission. God, speaking to the woman, said "He shall rule over you." Men and women are inherently different and the Bible details two different standards of sexual morality, one for men and the other for women. Has anything changed? No.

The Book of Genesis is quite clear on this. A simple, real litmus test of someone's belief in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God would be to point to the relevant verses in Genesis in which God clearly lays out the role and mission of each sex and ask them if they disagree with what the Scripture says as written. Any hesitation, waffling, weasel words, or argument and you know you're dealing with a heretic. Most of those whom you put through this test are going to reveal themselves to be heretics.

John rockwell said...

@manuel hernandez

Faith without works is dead. A man with no works to show for his faith is an unbeliever.

John rockwell said...

@voxday

All feminism is poison and that includes the suffragettes.

Viola Putri said...

Already thanks information you provide is interesting and helpful. please visit back Ace Maxs | Jelly Gamat QnC | Umpan Ikan Mas.

Sean Carnegie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
liberranter said...

In the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as a free woman of substance without a male protector, and for good reason.

This was true for most of human history. Only very recently has this changed. The only remaining question is how much more agony human civilization is willing to endure before it realizes that the ancients were right about women and the need to protect them from themselves (and thus protect society as a whole).

Michael Maier said...

"Unnatural acts" (anal, fellatio, cunnilingus) are considered a sin

There's a Song in the Bible you should read.

loveisintheair10 said...

Thats why we have to spread the love..
visit my blog if you are interested and thank you in advance.

loveisintheair10.blogspot.com.br

VFM #7634 said...

@Artisanal Toad
You may not technically be a liar, but you do rely on very questionable, biased sources, and refuse to rely on better ones, such as what you disdainfully dismiss as "The Magic Book of Medieval Opinions". I highly doubt this "Professor Brundage" fellow is really trying to shine an objective light on the Church Fathers.

First of all, a lot of these saints, including most particularly Augustine, lived in a time when Manichaean dualism was in vogue, which declared the body and all material pleasures evil and the soul and anything spiritual good. The Church declared this a heresy -- they even had a crusade against the Cathars, who were also pushing that belief -- but it still tainted the men living then, just as liberalism taints all men living today.

If polygamy was lawful, you wouldn't have statements in the Bible like Matthew 19:24. (It's not the one you'd think I'd throw at you.) Or the fact that polygamy was unknown even among the earliest Christians, so you can't pin this one on Constantine.

In primitive cultures where there is a sex imbalance among the children, in every case it was inspected, it was found to be due to infanticide. The argument about older men being more likely to father girls is because older men's Y sperm degrades first. Men who survive cancer also usually father girls, because Y sperm is more easily destroyed by adverse conditions.

Also, I think it's rather telling that it was the WOMEN, not the men, who bitched the most when Christian missionaries tried to break up polygamous marriages. Polygamy is actually, at its root, a matriarchal institution.

SirHamster said...

@Artisanal Toad
You may not technically be a liar, but you do rely on very questionable, biased sources, and refuse to rely on better ones, such as what you disdainfully dismiss as "The Magic Book of Medieval Opinions". I highly doubt this "Professor Brundage" fellow is really trying to shine an objective light on the Church Fathers.


He is a liar. "perverts Jerome and Augustine"

Spends a lot of effort preaching polygamy to Christians, rather than Christ to the world.

But note Vox's distinction between rhetoric and dialectic, and recognize that dialectic is wasted on AT. It's worth doing the work to recognize how AT is wrong, and give others pointers to the same, but there are better things to spend time on.

Artisanal Toad said...

@VFM #7634

I'm not interested in a RCC-Prot flamewar. I will touch on a few points strictly as a matter of what the Bible actually says. If what the Bible says contradicts the teachings and traditions of the church, I refer you to Matthew 15:3-9 and you can deal with it on your own.

It is interesting that you focus on polygamy, rather than the main point I made, which is that the woman is married when she gives her virginity to a man in the act of sexual intercourse. I will address the subject of polygamy in another comment, but the fact is, compared to the definition of marriage polygamy is a sideshow.

The reason is that God is not mocked. Adultery is the crime/sin of a married woman having sex with any man other than her husband. When she is married to the man she gives her virginity to (whether she knows it or not) she is married from that point on. No amount of wedding ceremony will change that and to have a wedding ceremony with a married woman is an act of fraud. The point is look around any church you want to at the so-called married couples and ask yourself: "Did he get her virginity?"

If the answer is no, then it's pretty much assured they're living in adultery. Think God will bless that?

Numbers 30:5 provides the first protection. The father of the woman, in her youth and living in her father's house, has the authority to forbid any and every agreement she makes. If she agreed to have sex she was agreeing to marriage whether she knew it or not and in the day her father hears of it (hears that she agreed to marry) he can forbid that. Seven words from his mouth and that marriage never happened. And what did God say? That He will forgive her because her father has forbidden it.

The second solution is that if the man is not a Christian, he can give the woman whose virginity he took a certificate of divorce for her adultery and in that moment she is legitimately and lawfully divorced. If he's a non-Christian.

The idea that all these adulterous unions that were caused by the lies everyone has been taught now need to be broken up is ridiculous. Yet, to allow the situation to continue is wrong. Church leaders will not address this because women are offended.

Do you suppose the fact these people are in an adulterous relationship has any impact on the fact that the more adultery a woman commits (the so-called "premarital sexual partners"), the more likely the ultimate adulterous union is going to fail? Like, maybe God actually cares about this adultery stuff?

If we look at the studies that list the category of women who were virgins when they had a wedding, the listed rate of divorce on this self-reported data is about 10%. Those who had one "pre-marital partner" have a divorce rate of about 30% and the more "premarital sexual partners" they had, the higher the divorce rate. Could that adultery be part of it? Could God be part of this?

The question then, is how many of those women who claimed to be virgins were not? Let's say it's 20% (at least 20% would be lying about it). Those women are really in the 30% divorce rate group (assuming they only had one "premarital" partner). Do the math and we come up with a real divorce rate for real marriages of 4%.

That means the adultery penalty is 26% when going from a legitimate marriage to an adulterous union. The more adulterous partners the higher it goes. God is not mocked.

Artisanal Toad said...

Hamster

You and Simple Tim had your asses kicked last time you took me on. Go back to your lesbian porn and leave the adult discussion to the adults.

Artisanal Toad said...

@VFM #7634

You say "If polygamy was lawful you wouldn't have statements in the Bible like Matthew 19:24". You are making the claim that God changes when He said He does not change (Malachi 3:6). That Christ is not the same, yesterday, today and forever, even though the Bible says He is (Hebrews 13:8).

Jeremiah 31:31-32 is where God stated that He was the husband of both Israel and Judah. Does God violate His own Law? When God makes a prophesy about Christ, does He tell lies?

The wording of your statement "If polygamy was lawful" implies it is unlawful, a sin. That means you're claiming the Apostle Paul was a liar, because he clearly stated in Romans 4:15 and 5:13 that where there is no Law there is no transgression and without a transgression sin is not imputed. The Law regulated the practice of having more than one wife. God does not regulate sin.

In Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 it is forbidden to either add to or subtract from the Law. And what did Jesus say about the Law in Matthew 5:17-19? That the Law would not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. And what did the Law say about polygamy? It regulated the practice (Lev. 18:17-18; Deut. 21:15; 25:5-10). In Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (the Levirate marriage) polygamy was commanded in certain situations. Additionally, in 2nd Samuel 12:8, God took credit for giving King David multiple wives and said He'd have given him more if it wasn't enough.

So, God regulated, condoned, commanded in certain cases and even participated in the practice of having more than one wife. Does God change? By His own testimony He does not. Obviously you are confused by this but God had an explanation for that as well when He said

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

To call polygamy matriarchal is preposterous. Polygamy is by definition a patriarchal marriage. As history confirms over and over again, very few men can manage this. Does the word Alpha come to mind? If it doesn't it should. The monopoly condition of monogamous marriage rests on the doctrine of gender equalism, which is the foundation of feminism. Men and women are not equal and Genesis 2:24 did not place any restrictions on a man taking more than one wife.

The entire point of polygamy is that polygamy is necessary for monogamy to function correctly because as long as a man has the right to take more than one wife, his monogamous wife does not have a monopoly on him. He has not given up his right to say "Next!" although he has given up his right to kick her out. This is what is known as accountability and lacking accountability all monopolies result in bad behavior.

Like it or not, God designed marriage the way He designed it, which did not restrict the man in the number of wives he might have. God does not change, therefore the commitment standard of marriage has not changed. A woman can only have one husband at a time but a man may have more than one wife at the same time.

SirHamster said...

You and Simple Tim had your asses kicked last time you took me on. Go back to your lesbian porn and leave the adult discussion to the adults.

You were the one who brought up the sexual fantasies of having your hypothetical multiple wives start up a sex show, liar. (How many wives does AT actually have? I'm thinking 0.)

Now you project your sexual perversion onto me rather than own up to it. Your hate for what should be Christian brothers is noted and highlighted - you are not of us. Repent.

Sam Stayer said...

Web development and creation of online projects - unlimited opportunities for your business!
Bespoke web development, creation and support of online stores based on OpenCart or other CMS platforms with WebiProg company will allow you to get the following features: integration with payment systems, SEO-optimization, speed optimization, security and also our professional technical support. Visit our website!

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.